The Politics of Pretend Strength: How Bullies Keep Getting Elected

 

The Politics of Pretend Strength: How Bullies Keep Getting Elected

The politics of pretend strength is a fascinating spectacle, a theatrical performance where bullies masquerade as saviors, and the masses cheer them on as if their lives depended on it. Recent elections in the United States and India have showcased this age-old dynamic, proving once again that people are more than willing to place their trust in those who promise protection—ironically, often from problems they themselves created. It’s like watching kids in school buddy up with the local bully, believing that aligning with the tormentor will keep them safe from harm. Spoiler alert: it rarely does.

At its core, this behavior is a natural instinct, one shared by creatures across the universe. The strong dominate, the weak seek shelter, and the cycle perpetuates itself until a few enlightened souls realize that collective strength is far more effective than submitting to a single tyrant. But where’s the fun in that? Movies would be pretty dull without a hero and a villain, and apparently, so would politics.

In America, democracy was born out of a desire to escape constant fear and instability. The founding fathers—brilliant but deeply flawed—crafted a system they believed would unite people under a shared set of rules. Of course, their vision conveniently excluded women and anyone who wasn’t a white European male, but let’s not let historical nuance get in the way of a good narrative. These were bullies in their own right, but they were clever enough to design a system that distributed power broadly enough to prevent one person from taking over completely.

India, on the other hand, never had the luxury of such decentralization. In its federal structure, power at the state level is largely at the mercy of the central government. The ongoing troubles in Kashmir aren’t just about unresolved historical issues; they’re about a system that refuses to empower regions to govern themselves effectively. When a bully takes control at the center, everyone else falls in line because they don’t have much choice. It’s a stark contrast to the United States, where even the President can be thwarted by a local sheriff with a firm grip on their jurisdiction.

Speaking of sheriffs, the U.S. might be the only place on earth where local elected law enforcement officials wield enough authority to make even the leader of the free world think twice. This patchwork of power dynamics is both the strength and the Achilles’ heel of American democracy. It ensures that no single bully can dominate entirely, but it also creates a cacophony of competing interests that often paralyzes the system. Still, it’s a far cry from places where central authority reigns unchecked.

As for the return of Donald Trump, it’s easy to understand why some are anxious. A man with a penchant for bluster, bravado, and bullying tactics is back in the Oval Office. But before anyone starts packing for Canada, it’s worth remembering that America’s system was built to withstand exactly this kind of leadership. Yes, a President can stir up plenty of trouble—immigration crackdowns, wealth redistribution to the ultra-rich, or inflammatory rhetoric—but dismantling the system entirely? That’s a tall order, even for Trump.

The truth is, Trump isn’t a dictator-in-waiting; he’s a brand. His appeal lies in his ability to sell himself as a protector of “real Americans” against outsiders, even though most rational people understand that no country in its right mind would dare go to war with the United States. The real “invasion” he’s warning against is immigration, a fear stoked by decades of political manipulation. But the irony is that many who voted for him did so not because they wanted him to build a wall, but because they believed he could safeguard their interests—interests that, ironically, are often eroded by the very policies he champions.

Meanwhile, those looking at Trump’s victory from abroad, particularly in places like India, might feel a pang of déjà vu. Bullies in power are nothing new, whether it’s Putin’s decades-long grip on Russia or Xi Jinping’s carefully cultivated image of invincibility in China. The world remains as unstable—or as stable—as it was twenty years ago. Adding Trump back into the mix doesn’t fundamentally change the equation. The real fear isn’t that he’ll usher in a dystopian nightmare, but that he’ll continue the slow erosion of wealth and opportunity for everyone except the ultra-elite. Then again, isn’t that what every administration has been doing, albeit with less theatrics?

Ultimately, the politics of pretend strength is less about governance and more about optics. People gravitate toward leaders who exude confidence and power, even if it’s all smoke and mirrors. And as long as voters keep mistaking bravado for competence, the bullies will keep winning. It’s a cycle as predictable as it is depressing, but hey, at least it keeps the drama alive. After all, what’s politics without a little chaos?